WEAPON 8K VISTA VISION ANAMORPHIC

[ignacio guzman]

Hi everyone,

Was looking at the Red holiday video on Jarred's Facebook and noticed an 8K VV anamorphic body. Anyone else catch that?

 

[Stacey Spears]

It was announced a while ago. I believe there is one in Paris at RVZ.

 

[Steve DiMaggio]

yeah I saw it too!

steve

 

[Nick Morrison]

I believe its a more affordable 4:3 cut of the VV sensor.

 

[Charlie Stover]

If you go here http://www.red.com/products/weapon-8k#tech-specs and scroll to the bottom the specs for the ANA VV are listed. From what I remember Nick is right. Its a more affordable version of the Dragon VV sensor. The yields are higher because the width is only 33.60 mm vs 40.96 mm on the full VV sensor.

 

[Nick Morrison]

If you go here http://www.red.com/products/weapon-8k#tech-specs and scroll to the bottom the specs for the ANA VV are listed. From what I remember Nick is right. Its a more affordable version of the Dragon VV sensor. The yields are higher because the width is only 33.60 mm vs 40.96 mm on the full VV sensor.

Bingo. Thanks for following up.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

What a smart idea.

 

[Phil Holland]

RED Weapon Dragon 8K VV ANA maximum image plane and resolution equates to the 8K 14:9 format of 6720x4320 if you're curious. 39.94x29.03mm.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I don't know why 6720px across can be called 8K. Anamorphic does not magically increase resolution. I think I read Wally Pfister believes that anamorphic 4-perf 35mm resolves 8K. That is clearly not the case. Call it Super 4K, because it exceeds 4K by a significant margin. But 8K? No.

 

[Craig Lees]

Wow. Is this camera actually available?

Can't see it on the red product store page. I shoot a lot of anamorphic.

Cheers
Craig Lees
UK

 

[Patrick Tresch]

I don't know why 6720px across can be called 8K. Anamorphic does not magically increase resolution. I think I read Wally Pfister believes that anamorphic 4-perf 35mm resolves 8K. That is clearly not the case. Call it Super 4K, because it exceeds 4K by a significant margin. But 8K? No.

Well I think you have to count the pixels... as your image is squeezed, the horizontal resolution "loss" is compensated by the vertical resolution "gain" to make a nice 8k cinemascope.

 

[Mikael Lubtchansky]

Wow. Is this camera actually available?

Can't see it on the red product store page. I shoot a lot of anamorphic.

from Jarred (on Facebook) :

... secret order. Just ask your rep . Twice. because the first time he/she will say they have no idea what you are talking about

 

[Elsie N]

Isn't this a sensor they made for Panavision?

 

[Nick Morrison]

Isn't this a sensor they made for Panavision?

Nope don't think so. Just a custom order.

 

[Erich Roland]

Any stats published as to which Anamorphic lenses will cover this large sensor?

 

[Craig Lees]

Mikael that is awesome thanks!

... secret order. Just ask your rep . Twice. because the first time he/she will say they have no idea what you are talking about

The height of this sensor should Cover most Anamorphic lenses. If red europe want to lend me one for a day, happy to test on my Lomo's
; )
Craig Lees
UK

 

[Elsie N]

Nope don't think so. Just a custom order.

Heh, yeah... just one more hurdle for the original vV sensor to navigate around.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I think I read Wally Pfister believes that anamorphic 4-perf 35mm resolves 8K. That is clearly not the case. Call it Super 4K, because it exceeds 4K by a significant margin. But 8K? No.

Pfister believes a lot and he's a notorious anti-digital spokesman. He's a great cinematographer, but his technophobia against digital makes me laugh every time. If you think film is the best way to shoot a film, no one is stopping you, but Pfister is trash talking every digital camera while claiming 35mm to be something that it's not.

 

[Nick Morrison]

I don't know why 6720px across can be called 8K. Anamorphic does not magically increase resolution. I think I read Wally Pfister believes that anamorphic 4-perf 35mm resolves 8K. That is clearly not the case. Call it Super 4K, because it exceeds 4K by a significant margin. But 8K? No.

I don't think Super35 (regardless of perf) has a set resolution, does it? Doesn't it depend on the scanner?

Haven't there been scans of Super35 larger than 4K?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

You can scan film, Super-8 or IMAX, etc. at 100,000K if you had such a scanner -- film doesn't have pixels but obviously it has a limit on what it can resolve, so it's mainly a matter of picking a scanning resolution that is practical and doesn't lose any detail in the original.

The other issue that confuses people is the difference between optimal scanning resolution and how much information is on the film. Nyquist tells you to sample at twice the frequency to avoid aliasing, so if the film image resolves a 4K chart, it should be scanned at 8K to avoid aliasing.

People shooting charts often seem to find that 35mm color negative movie film, 21mm to 24mm wide, captures detail in the 3K-ish range, let's say 3.5K for example, which suggests that it needs to be scanned at 7K to avoid aliasing. But since most real world detail doesn't create extreme aliasing problems, 6K is what some archivists are using for scanning, and many other people scan at 4K, which is probably fine for older movies shot on softer lenses and stocks anyway. 2K scanning is definitely a compromise.

4-perf 35mm anamorphic has increased vertical resolution over cropping 35mm spherical to 2.40 but since the "K" number only refers to horizontal size, it's confusing to say that anamorphic has a bigger "K" value.